Assessing Lee's Division Commanders

[Wizard of Cozz]

We've had these types of questions before, though not in this exact form.

What I struggle with is that I don't really know what Division and Corps commanders did as compared to regimental and brigade commanders, whose duties I have a better handle on.

As a result I always fall back on how the division did in battle or on the march. That performance may reflect on the commander but it may also be a result of good subordinates or excellent soldiers.

It's kind of like the school or community sports observation that most people can't recognize good coaching in a losing team.

Can anybody help me out with a "job description" for a Civil War Division commander?

Division commanders were with a lot of tactical flexibility. A Confederate division was usually composed of 4-5 brigades. A division commander may need to decide how best to place his brigades. Usually 2 in front 2 in rear for an attack, while they placed them all in line with possibly one in rear for defense. How best to release those brigades during an attack, controlling the direction and tempo of said attack. Division commanders operated in the rear of the division, while the brigade commanders led from the front. They were responsible for the order of march, as well. There is much more to probably add, but that should help you get started.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

Division commanders were with a lot of tactical flexibility. A Confederate division was usually composed of 4-5 brigades. A division commander may need to decide how best to place his brigades. Usually 2 in front 2 in rear for an attack, while they placed them all in line with possibly one in rear for defense. How best to release those brigades during an attack, controlling the direction and tempo of said attack. Division commanders operated in the rear of the division, while the brigade commanders led from the front. They were responsible for the order of march, as well. There is much more to probably add, but that should help you get started.

Good answer, @Wizard.

 

[Stryker65]

Good for Division and Corps - Probably agree with most of this. I'm very high Pender as well. Just don't have real-time experience of him commanding the division. I would actually consider Mahone and Rodes as being able to command a corps IMO. I also think Early and Hood could commadn a corps as well, with the note that this is pre-Chickamauaga injury Hood. I thought Hood performed very well in that battle. Especially after reading Powell's Chickamauga campaign.

I forgot about that one. Definitely Hood before/after Chickamauga were two different people.

Good for Division - I'd place Field in that slot as well. I also agree Bushrod was a better brigade than division commander, but Powell also gives him extremely high marks at the end of the Chickamauaga campaign. I'd also move Ramseur down better for brigade honestly, which hurts me to say, cause I find him a compelling person to read about.

Johnson I left for brigade since he was one of the few brigade commanders who served from Shiloh all the way to Tullahoma, when almost every other brigade commander at that time was forced out or killed.

Hard to get a read on Pickett before Gettysburg, cause his division is never truly engaged to get a good read. As for McLaws, he's so hard to judge. Clearly Lee was not happy after Salem's Church, and YET, McLaws division consistently performs well in almost every battle it fights. I don't think he was as bad as Lee thought, I think Lee let that one battle shade his opinion of McLaws.

Pickett I feel lost his fiery drive after Gettysburg; McLaws served better in his 1864 role as defender of Georgia under Hardee; with few troops he did a moderately good job.

On the subject of the cavalry commanders: I would give Division Or Corps only to Stuart and Hampton; Only Division to the Lees; and Better For Brigade to Butler and Rosser. The latter is since Butler had commanded the 2nd SC Cavalry for the majority of the war; giving him a brigade command so late in the war and then the jump to division was too early, I think. Rosser served well as commander of his Laurel Brigade, but was a kind of Custer-ish figure when commanding a division.

 

[RedRover]

Just because he was promoted doesn't mean he's say better at his position than others. Under that logic, Mahone was promoted to division command in Anderson's stead, but there is no one who will tell you that Mahone was an outstanding brigade commander.

General Anderson thought Mahone was a fantastic brigade commander and recommended him for division command as early as the spring of 1863...

General Longstreet thought Brigadier General Mahone distinguished for skill and gallantry on May 6, 1864. During his convalescence for serious wounds received that day, Longstreet expressed to the Confederate high command shortly after that Mahone had in his eyes won his spurs for promotion to division command (which at the time of Longstreet's writing, he held, commanding Anderson's division after Longstreet's evacuation):

It is true that at the moment of assuming command of Andersons' division Mahone was the senior brigadier...

Mahone, Nov. 16, 1861.
Wright, June 3, 1862.
Perry, Aug. 28, 1862.
Perrin, Sept. 10, 1863.
Harris, Jan. 20, 1864.

But Mahone was soon promoted to Major General (temporary rank) in June, which he declined. He was promoted to Major General on August 3, to rank from July 30, 1864.

Anderson was promoted because he was solid and dependable, and because he had seniority over others. At the time there was only Early who had the experience to take command of the Corps, but Anderson had served in Longstreet's corps, and had seniority over Early, so there was little chance of Early jumping Anderson.

When Lee appointed R.H. Anderson to command Longstreet's corps on May 7, 1864, Early outranked Anderson. Early's commission as major general ranked from January 17, 1863...

Anderson's commission as Major General ranked from July 14, 1863...

[CORRECTION: per the correction given in subsequent posts, the above is incorrect, Gen. Anderson was promoted to Maj. General in 1862, and not 1863 as given above. Ergo Gen. Anderson ranked Gen. Early in mid-1864.]

However, it is likely that Gen. Lee was at that time aware of the failing condition of Gen. A.P. Hill commanding the third corps. And on the 8th of May, General A.P. Hill of the third corps was evacuated for illness, and Maj. Gen. Early of the second corps assigned to command that corps temporarily. Both generals Early and R.H. Anderson were shortly commissioned lieutenant generals (temporary) to rank from May 31, 1864.

The Temporary rank only held while holding the commands assigned them which called for it.

Lt. Gen. Early was relieved from command in the valley on March 30, 1865...

And Lt. Gen. Anderson relieved of corps command on April 8, 1865...

So it would appear both were major generals at the collapse of the Confederacy... as was Mahone, who commanded a division with Lee to the end at Appomattox.

[CORRECTION: See post no. 29 below... it would seem their temporary rank was yet in effect at the conclusion of the war as neither had received a new assignment by the collapse of the Confederacy, etc.]

Lee typically liked to promote from within the unit, though he wasn't afraid not to promote people if he didn't feel they were up to the task. If you have actual evidence of his performances on the battlefield to rank him higher, feel free to do so.

When Gen. Longstreet was wounded and disabled at the Wilderness on May 6, 1864, General Anderson was not a part of his corps, but commanded a division in Hill's third Corps. Rather than demote him back to division command in October when Longstreet returned, Lee gave Anderson command of the fourth corps of the Army of Northern Virginia (formerly Beauregard's late command) with the temporary lieutenant-generalcy.


Anderson's division command record on the battlefield had evidently informed his commanders of his fitness for promotion. He first commanded a division in the Army of Northern Virginia at the battle of Seven Pines, where he commanded Longstreet's division (Longstreet commanding a wing of the army)... Longstreet reported...

He was subsequently promoted to major general and given command of a division (formerly Huger's). After Second Manassas and Antietam, he was the first named of the most distinguished officers under Longstreet's command in his official report...

At Chancellorsville, he was among the few distinguished officers mentioned by name in General Lee's official report...

Regarding Gettysburg, Anderson and his division did a great deal of fighting on July 2. But perhaps more notably regarding Anderson personally, Gen. Mahone says he was among those officers who had no interest in joining the chorus of officers second guessing General Lee's orders regarding the attack on July 3. Gen. Mahone recalled...

During the attack, Anderson's division was prepared to advance and support any success by Pickett's division, etc. He received the word to advance, and commenced doing so, when halted on the order of General Longstreet, who perceived that the attack had failed. From Longstreet's report...

Anderson's last combat as a division commander was at the Wilderness during May 5-6, 1864.

 

[General JJ]

@Wizard of Cozz my rankings are based on five main categories:
1) Good for division and corps: D. R. Jones, W. D. Pender, J. B. Gordon, J. G. Walker, J. C. Breckinridge, A. P. Hill, D. H. Hill, and R. S. Ewell (before 2nd Manassas)
2) Good for division, but not for corps: R. H. Anderson, C. M. Wilcox, J. B. Hood, R. S. Ewell (after 2nd Manassas), J. A. Early, G. E. Pickett (after Gettysburg), R. Ransom, J. B. Kershaw, W. Mahone, R. F. Hoke, R. Rodes, E. Johnson, S. D. Ramseur, H. Heth, B. Grimes, and W. E. Starke (not mentioned)
3) Better for brigade: H. T. Hays, C. W. Field, B. Johnson, J. L. Kemper, A. Lawton, G. C. Wharton, J. Pegram, J. A. Walker, C. A. Evans, and R. L. Colston
4) Better for non-field duties: G. E. Pickett (after Gettysburg), L. McLaws
5) Bad: W. B. Taliaferro, J. R. Jones

My main point here is that Ewell and Pickett each had one major event that changed their style of generalship. Ewell had 2nd Manassas, and Pickett had Gettysburg. Before the battle, both were more aggressive commanders; afterwards, they weren't.

McLaws slander!!!

Joking, but IMO McLaws was very good at division command. Fresh off reading about his performance at Antietam and Gettysburg, he did quite well in both. His division was a heavy hitter.

Banks Ford is admittedly a poor showing, but his record is good otherwise.

 

[Wizard of Cozz]

McLaws slander!!!

Joking, but IMO McLaws was very good at division command. Fresh off reading about his performance at Antietam and Gettysburg, he did quite well in both. His division was a heavy hitter.

Banks Ford is admittedly a poor showing, but his record is good otherwise.

Lee's issue is with him being not aggressive and slow. He felt he was slow to arrive at Antietam and that he should of been more aggressive in cooperating with Early to attack at Salems Church. I agree his division was a cracked unit.

 

[Wizard of Cozz]

General Anderson thought Mahone was a fantastic brigade commander and recommended him for division command as early as the spring of 1863...

View attachment 542474

General Longstreet thought Brigadier General Mahone distinguished for skill and gallantry on May 6, 1864. During his convalescence for serious wounds received that day, Longstreet expressed to the Confederate high command shortly after that Mahone had in his eyes won his spurs for promotion to division command (which at the time of Longstreet's writing, he held, commanding Anderson's division after Longstreet's evacuation):

View attachment 542466

It is true that at the moment of assuming command of Andersons' division Mahone was the senior brigadier...

Mahone, Nov. 16, 1861.
Wright, June 3, 1862.
Perry, Aug. 28, 1862.
Perrin, Sept. 10, 1863.
Harris, Jan. 20, 1864.

But Mahone was soon promoted to Major General (temporary rank) in June, which he declined. He was promoted to Major General on August 3, to rank from July 30, 1864.



When Lee appointed R.H. Anderson to command Longstreet's corps on May 7, 1864, Early outranked Anderson. Early's commission as major general ranked from January 17, 1863...

View attachment 542451

Anderson's commission as Major General ranked from July 14, 1863...

View attachment 542450

View attachment 542455

However, it is likely that Gen. Lee was at that time aware of the failing condition of Gen. A.P. Hill commanding the third corps. And on the 8th of May, General A.P. Hill of the third corps was evacuated for illness, and Maj. Gen. Early of the second corps assigned to command that corps temporarily. Both generals Early and R.H. Anderson were shortly commissioned lieutenant generals (temporary) to rank from May 31, 1864.

View attachment 542452

View attachment 542453

The Temporary rank only held while holding the commands assigned them which called for it.

View attachment 542472

Lt. Gen. Early was relieved from command in the valley on March 30, 1865...

View attachment 542473

And Lt. Gen. Anderson relieved of corps command on April 8, 1865...

View attachment 542469

So it would appear both were major generals at the collapse of the Confederacy... as was Mahone, who commanded a division with Lee to the end at Appomattox.




When Gen. Longstreet was wounded and disabled at the Wilderness on May 6, 1864, General Anderson was not a part of his corps, but commanded a division in Hill's third Corps. Rather than demote him back to division command in October when Longstreet returned, Lee gave Anderson command of the fourth corps of the Army of Northern Virginia (formerly Beauregard's late command) with the temporary lieutenant-generalcy.


Anderson's division command record on the battlefield had evidently informed his commanders of his fitness for promotion. He first commanded a division in the Army of Northern Virginia at the battle of Seven Pines, where he commanded Longstreet's division (Longstreet commanding a wing of the army)... Longstreet reported...

View attachment 542446

He was subsequently promoted to major general and given command of a division (formerly Huger's). After Second Manassas and Antietam, he was the first named of the most distinguished officers under Longstreet's command in his official report...

View attachment 542449

At Chancellorsville, he was among the few distinguished officers mentioned by name in General Lee's official report...

View attachment 542454


Regarding Gettysburg, Anderson and his division did a great deal of fighting on July 2. But perhaps more notably regarding Anderson personally, Gen. Mahone says he was among those officers who had no interest in joining the chorus of officers second guessing General Lee's orders regarding the attack on July 3. Gen. Mahone recalled...

View attachment 542457

During the attack, Anderson's division was prepared to advance and support any success by Pickett's division, etc. He received the word to advance, and commenced doing so, when halted on the order of General Longstreet, who perceived that the attack had failed. From Longstreet's report...

View attachment 542460

Anderson's last combat as a division commander was at the Wilderness during May 5-6, 1864.

Anderson was commissioned MG July 14 1862 not 1863.

 

[RedRover]

Anderson was commissioned MG July 14 1862 not 1863.

I see. Indeed he was.

 

[ETNConfederate]

It should be mentioned that General Early invariably, when using rank, referred to himself as Lieutenant General. He even did so in a December-ish 1865 response to misinformation General Sheridan published under his official title. Basically, for Sheridan's assertion to be correct, the entire Army of the Valley District would have to be casualties. Twice.

The case may be made that General Early was the last serving Confederate Lieutenant General. His relief letter directed him to go home and await instruction. The cited instruction states temporary ranks hold until the officer resumed their previous command.

This never came due to the collapse of the Confederate government. Given he never assumed subsequent military duties or took a pardon or amnesty, his Lieutenant General rank may be presumed to have not sunsetted. He, therefore, was still a Lieutenant General in the Confederate Army awaiting instruction on March 3, 1894.

Another point is no one, US or Confederate, ever questioned Early's representation of his military service. I've read somewhere around 13 years of the Library of Congress archive, and am reasonably confident there's no documentation there to support anyone questioning Early on the subject of his terminal rank.

 

[RedRover]

It should be mentioned that General Early invariably, when using rank, referred to himself as Lieutenant General. He even did so in a December-ish 1865 response to misinformation General Sheridan published under his official title. Basically, for Sheridan's assertion to be correct, the entire Army of the Valley District would have to be casualties. Twice.

The case may be made that General Early was the last serving Confederate Lieutenant General. His relief letter directed him to go home and await instruction. The cited instruction states temporary ranks hold until the officer resumed their previous command.

This never came due to the collapse of the Confederate government. Given he never assumed subsequent military duties or took a pardon or amnesty, his Lieutenant General rank may be presumed to have not sunsetted. He, therefore, was still a Lieutenant General in the Confederate Army awaiting instruction on March 3, 1894.

Another point is no one, US or Confederate, ever questioned Early's representation of his military service. I've read somewhere around 13 years of the Library of Congress archive, and am reasonably confident there's no documentation there to support anyone questioning Early on the subject of his terminal rank.

Your explanation makes me wonder if General Lee's orders to both Early and Anderson to proceed to their homes, rather than continuing with the army, were then in part a means for those officers being retired without the necessary reduction of their temporary rank, until, as you mention, Richmond's new assignment orders... which never came.

There were also some temporary major generals, for division command, in Lee's army...

 

[Bruce Vail]

You may have over-rated DH Hill.

The Battle of South Mountain was his chance to shine as Division commander. He didn't shine.

 

[Stryker65]

It should be mentioned that General Early invariably, when using rank, referred to himself as Lieutenant General. He even did so in a December-ish 1865 response to misinformation General Sheridan published under his official title. Basically, for Sheridan's assertion to be correct, the entire Army of the Valley District would have to be casualties. Twice.

The case may be made that General Early was the last serving Confederate Lieutenant General. His relief letter directed him to go home and await instruction. The cited instruction states temporary ranks hold until the officer resumed their previous command.

This never came due to the collapse of the Confederate government. Given he never assumed subsequent military duties or took a pardon or amnesty, his Lieutenant General rank may be presumed to have not sunsetted. He, therefore, was still a Lieutenant General in the Confederate Army awaiting instruction on March 3, 1894.

Another point is no one, US or Confederate, ever questioned Early's representation of his military service. I've read somewhere around 13 years of the Library of Congress archive, and am reasonably confident there's no documentation there to support anyone questioning Early on the subject of his terminal rank.

Would Sam Hood count under the same rank as full General?

 

[ETNConfederate]

Would Sam Hood count under the same rank as full General?

No. He accepted assignment to duty in his permanent rank and was in transit to Texas to fulfill the assignment. The modern military follows the same practice- 4 star rank is specific to a job. If the Army Chief of Staff were to remain on active duty following his tour, he would revert to Lieutenant General. This is why uniformed heads of service generally retire from their job.

 

[rpkennedy]

Lee's issue is with him being not aggressive and slow. He felt he was slow to arrive at Antietam and that he should of been more aggressive in cooperating with Early to attack at Salems Church. I agree his division was a cracked unit.

Hartwig is pretty convincing when he argues that McLaws took a lot of unjustified flak for what transpired during the Maryland Campaign. Between that campaign and Salem Church, Lee's thoughts on McLaws were set and this explains why, IMO, Lee gave very specific orders to McLaws himself (rather than go through Longstreet who was present) and why Lee also told Longstreet to stick close to McLaws during the attack on July 2 at Gettysburg.

Ryan

 

[ColonelBuckwalter]

I can already say that I think you hit the nail on the head with a 5 ranking for John Brown Gordon. I also regard him as one of Lee's top generals.

Agreed.

 

[ColonelBuckwalter]

I'll agree with you on anyone who didn't make my list:

Hood: 2.5

Tough, not brilliant. He had received an admonishment from Lee about how his camps were administered for lack of cleanliness and hygiene. Speaks volumes for his general ship in the West.

Pickett: 2.0/0

He was fair until Gettysburg. After that I doubt he was ever the same, deeming to have gone in a permanent vacation mentally, end with quite a fish fry.

Early: 5*

I'll say this about him, besides the fact that he swore constantly, was almost always madder than a wet hen, and had absolutely terrible attitude, he fought hard. I think he was under utilized, probably for the gruff 'tude. There was a reason Lee called him his bad old man. He would have been more effective given a larger role before the end of the war.

Ewell: (solid) 4

Even with the wound, weird as the man was (and he was) he had the likeability and ability to command that made up for his bird like body movements.

Now everyone can yell...

AP Hill: 4

NOT that he was a bad general. He wasn't l, he was excellent.. when he was there. Hill was always sick, fur reasons of politeness I will not go into. Had he been around more I would have given him the extra point. Maybe I'm being unfair. But its just IMO.

 

[Jamieva]

I'll agree with you on anyone who didn't make my list:

Hood: 2.5

Tough, not brilliant. He had received an admonishment from Lee about how his camps were administered for lack of cleanliness and hygiene. Speaks volumes for his general ship in the West.

Pickett: 2.0/0

He was fair until Gettysburg. After that I doubt he was ever the same, deeming to have gone in a permanent vacation mentally, end with quite a fish fry.

Early: 5*

I'll say this about him, besides the fact that he swore constantly, was almost always madder than a wet hen, and had absolutely terrible attitude, he fought hard. I think he was under utilized, probably for the gruff 'tude. There was a reason Lee called him his bad old man. He would have been more effective given a larger role before the end of the war.

Ewell: (solid) 4

Even with the wound, weird as the man was (and he was) he had the likeability and ability to command that made up for his bird like body movements.

Now everyone can yell...

AP Hill: 4

NOT that he was a bad general. He wasn't l, he was excellent.. when he was there. Hill was always sick, fur reasons of politeness I will not go into. Had he been around more I would have given him the extra point. Maybe I'm being unfair. But its just IMO.

AP Hill did not have illness issues until he was elevated to corps command

 

[Stryker65]

AP Hill did not have illness issues until he was elevated to corps command

I think he had illness issues at Fredericksburg, but that's because his daughter died, I think.

 

[JeffBrooks]

Early: 5*

I'll say this about him, besides the fact that he swore constantly, was almost always madder than a wet hen, and had absolutely terrible attitude, he fought hard. I think he was under utilized, probably for the gruff 'tude. There was a reason Lee called him his bad old man. He would have been more effective given a larger role before the end of the war.

As far as AoNV command "what ifs", the biggest one to my mind is what might have happened if Early, rather than Ewell, had replaced Jackson as commander of the Second Corps.

 

[SWS]

Compared with Early, one of Ewell's weaknesses was, perhaps, his fondness for society. I believe he spent the evening of July 1st drinking tea with some of the local ladies while he should have been directing Johnson's occupation of Culp's Hill.